F-16.net

sferrin wrote:

geogen wrote:

sferrin wrote:

LowObservable wrote:

Anyone want to start the JDRADM IOC date pool?

2025, if they're lucky.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It's actually quite pathetic how long it takes to get anything done these days. It's almost like they sit around having meetings trying to figure out how to waste as much time and money as possible. Mad

Perhaps a joint-venture with the Swedes then? Wink

Why would we want to do that? Question

Um, if you were following the thread (and other recent ones), you might detect some innocent humor Question

I.E. Sweden could perhaps be a more time-sensitive and economical co-development partner (insert popular assumptions here)? Surprised

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

sferrin wrote:

LowObservable wrote:

Anyone want to start the JDRADM IOC date pool?

2025, if they're lucky.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. It's actually quite pathetic how long it takes to get anything done these days. It's almost like they sit around having meetings trying to figure out how to waste as much time and money as possible. Mad

That was actually exactly my point in another thread. It really is despicable how long it is taking nowadays from project start to IOC. The F-16 first flew in 1974 and was fully operational in what? 1979, maybe 1980. The X-35 flew - the equivalent of the YF-16 - in 2000, and the F-35 won't reach IOC until 2012, at the earliest, for the USMC, 2013 for the USAF, and 2014 for the USN. That's freakin' outrageous! And before LMAggie or someone else says that's because how "advanced" the F-35 is, it has got nothing - nothing - that has not already appeared in some earlier form in other platforms, especially the F-22. The F-16, on the other hand, did far more to advance the state of the art, from fly-by-wire to side-stick control to relaxed static stability to 9g envelope... you name it. From first flight of a bare-bones prototype to IOC in what, five, maybe six years, for a design that was far riskier and advancd for its time than the F-35, which will take at least twice as long to go from prototype first flight to IOC, well over a decade. That's just freakin' ridiculous. Just look at the F-117 too. That was an even riskier program than the F-16, and with relatively little funding, went from frist flight in 1981 (1979 if you count Have Blue) to IOC in 1983!!! If I were director of procurement at the pentagon, I would completely scrap the way programs are funded and structured today and manage every single program like the F-117 or F-17, with relatively small up-front investments for a handful of units while accepting high risk but high innovation. As much as I support the F-35, I think it is the poster child of how NOT to run a defense procurement program. It will hopefully be, having learned our lesson, the last of its kind.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1132

I'd wager mostly because of how risk-adverse the industry has become. It's no longer a "get er done before the Rooskies" mentality, now it's "make sure every i is dotted and t is crossed in triplicate, cover-you-a$% at all costs" process.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

geogen wrote:

Um, if you were following the thread (and other recent ones), you might detect some innocent humor

I have been following the thread. I'm not seeing anything in it that suggests a reason for signing up with the Swedes. Question

Well, the Gripen entered service eight years after its first flight. Today, IOC+12 years, the second-generation version is fully operational and the third evolution is under development. Not too bad for a nation with the same population as North Carolina.

Last edited by Beazz on Jul 21, 2008 - 10:33 PM; edited 1 time in total

LowObservable wrote:

Well, the Gripen entered service eight years after its first flight. Today, IOC+12 years, the second-generation version is fully operational and the third evolution is under development. Not too bad for a nation with the same population as North Carolina.

Well don't know what constitues *not bad* but from what I read the Gripen began developement in 1982 and from then to now (26 yrs) a total of 138 a/c have been built and ONE demo a/c for the Gripen NG delivered in Apr 2008. Again, I don't know, but does simply one a/c constitute *fully operational* ?

Beazz

OK read some more and I guess you're referring to the second generation as being the C/D model? and the next gen the NG version? I still don't see what is so impressive to go from beginning developement to 26 years later haveing 138 A/C produced and an order for a grand total of 31 to be upgraded to a newer version? Basically it seems to me that in 26 years they went from inception to 138 planes and 2 generations, of which none, or very few, have even been delivered to their own air force? Is this somehow above and beyond the norm?

Obamanite wrote:

And before LMAggie or someone else says that's because how "advanced" the F-35 is, it has got nothing - nothing - that has not already appeared in some earlier form in other platforms, especially the F-22.

Does the F-22 have STOVL capability? Is the F-22 carrier suitable? Does the F-22 have the EOTS system? Does the F-22 have a do-or-die goal to be cheap and maintainable? Does the F-22 have to be built to 3000+ units? The F-35 has much less internal volume than the F-22 to accommodate more systems than the F-22. That results in an integration nightmare, not to mention the unprecedented about of internal fuel on the F-35. Just because you read this forum and wikipedia, it does not mean you know the whole picture.

Obamanite wrote:

As much as I support the F-35, I think it is the poster child of how NOT to run a defense procurement program.

You have no idea to run a defense program in the modern day economic atmosphere.

Obamanite wrote:

Just look at the F-117 too.

Don't compare the F-35 and the F-117. They are two completely different kinds of programs. Part of your debate is that we should just have several F-117 sized/style programs. That is a fair agruement, however I think it would be a sustainment, maintenance, and training fiasco. Part of your debate is that the F-35 is taking too long. First of all, the F-117 did not have to compete against a rival competitor just to even think about their design. Second of all, only 59 F-117s were delivered at a low rate. Since 2001 the F-35 designers had to take into account the 3000+ aircraft there were going to have to build in the factory and maintain on the field. Lastly, there are three variants which means much more flight testing to do.

There are some very poorly managed defense programs out there, but the F-35 is not one of them. Please stick to your board games, because you have no idea how the F-35 program is being run.

That had to Hurt Wink

Beazz
And since 1982 the world's leading power, with 30 times Sweden's GDP, has likewise taken one all-new fighter from conception to deployment, exported none of them (unlike Sweden) and is now closing down the line with no further development. Yes, C/D is a second-generation version with a new cockpit and ECM, and a lot of other changes.
LMAggie
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Sorry LO, I forgot when you feed them they get bigger.

With all due respect, seriously... arguably the most telling 'mismanagement' of the entire JSF program from inception, is that it indeed 'had to be' dependent on 3000+ aircraft sold, plus life-cycle field maintenance (unlike the F-22).

It's nothing about disrespect of the F-35's capability and brilliant engineering, it's about the apparent faults and miscalculations behind the program's agenda.

geogen wrote:

With all due respect, seriously... arguably the most telling 'mismanagement' of the entire JSF program from inception, is that it indeed 'had to be' dependent on 3000+ aircraft sold, plus life-cycle field maintenance (unlike the F-22).

It's nothing about disrespect of the F-35's capability and brilliant engineering, it's about the apparent faults and miscalculations behind the program's agenda.

I don't think it requires that assumption to be successful, although it needs that to hit its aggressive price point. There is inherently nothing wrong with a $40 billion development program and a $40~50 million flyaway cost. The latter is unlikely to change even if the total buy is halved or even reduced to 1/4 of the 3000 estimate as long as they are building about 120~250 a year which most likely will. The only thing that will change is the R&D amortization tab. Which at 750 aircrafts will be approximately $53 million vs $13 million.

Personally I think the 3000 number is very realistic, in fact if all the export potentials pan out we are looking at up to 4500 or more. I just don't see the USAF buying less than 1000 or the USA won't be able function. The USMC and USN needs at least 500 even if they trim their requirements to the limit and still have one F-35 squadron per carrier. That is already 1500, and that is really the extreme low ball number. With at least 500 exports likely to be signed in the first five years, I think the minimum F-35 run is around 2000. Anything lower is highly unlikely and will require a drastic re-alignment global balance of power and alliances. That extreme low ball estimate will increase unit costs (including R&D) by about $6~7 million. Not much really, just around 10%.

Just think of the F-35 program as spending $40 billion upfront for the option to buy any number of $40~50 million fighters down the road. The alternative will be to buy $100~130 million Raptors in sufficient numbers and not spend the $40 billion. That and living with inferior overall mission flexibilty which the F-22 offers and ponying up a much higher maintenance tab to keep the Raptors flying. This is not mentioning that only the USAF will be able to do this, whereas the USMC and USN will be left high and dry with an obsolete AV-8 and a long in the tooth upon inception Superbug.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

LowObservable wrote:

Beazz
And since 1982 the world's leading power, with 30 times Sweden's GDP, has likewise taken one all-new fighter from conception to deployment, exported none of them (unlike Sweden) and is now closing down the line with no further development. Yes, C/D is a second-generation version with a new cockpit and ECM, and a lot of other changes.
LMAggie
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Thing is the long development time for the F-22 has more to do with politics than anything else. And the Swedes can't fix THAT. Consider the time it took to go from contract award to flying two types of ATF prototypes each with two types of engines. It's politics not technical. Not to mention that the F-22 broke FAR more ground than the Gripen which isn't much more than a glorified F-20 with modern avionics. The F-22 and Gripen aren't remotely comperable.

geogen wrote:

With all due respect, seriously... arguably the most telling 'mismanagement' of the entire JSF program from inception, is that it indeed 'had to be' dependent on 3000+ aircraft sold, plus life-cycle field maintenance (unlike the F-22).

It's nothing about disrespect of the F-35's capability and brilliant engineering, it's about the apparent faults and miscalculations behind the program's agenda.

Its a big assumption to call that decision a mistake this early. The government is counting on saving large sums of money throughout the life of the aircraft far out-weighing the investment being made now.

Sferrin - Not sure that I agree. The idea of a stealthy, supercruising, agile, eight-AAM fighter was extremely sporty in the mid-1980s, so DemVal was essential; and there were some real engineering issues in development. Maybe a couple of years lost to congressional vacillation, but not much more than that.
I agree that the Gripen and F-22 aren't comparable, although "glorified F-20" is a serious understatement. The point about Gripen was that it was designed to match the funds available with the result that it passed the affordability test - which the F-22 didn't.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Alliances formed for Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile